Cancel the #DetroitWater Debt and Start Afresh

Sign the petition:

We call on the City of Detroit and the newly-formed
Great Lakes Water Authority to cancel the existing debts of Detroit
Water and Sewerage customers and start afresh with simple, affordable
rates: all customer past-due balances are wiped clean.

Last
year, Detroit made international headlines when tens of thousands of
residents lost their access to water through an aggressive shut-off
program by the water department.

The city
of Detroit has endured decades of economic turmoil, drastic depopulation
and repeated mismanagement. The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
(DWSD) is over $5 billion in debt (over $4,500 per family in the
metro Detroit area).To compensate, they have increased rates over 119%
in the last decade.¹Residents who fall behind on their bills risk water
shutoff, and in 2014 that’s exactly what happened to tens of thousands
of Detroiters.

The shutoff program didn't work,
and the DWSD collected less than 3% of the over $100 million currently
owed.² A large number of the families who entered into payment plans
last year are now defaulting on them yet again because they lack
sufficient income.

In contrast, a voluntary
bond tender offer initiated during the shutoffs allowed the city to
renegotiate high interest rates on municipal water bonds and save over
$250 million in interest fees for the city.³

The
bond markets know that Detroit's water debt is junk and the city will
unlikely ever be able to pay the current interest rates, which is why
Default Trends proclaimed Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)
its "Biggest Default of 2014".⁴

Corruption in
the DWSD has been rampant, with former Department head Victor Mercado
currently serving an 8-month federal corruption sentence for "conspiracy
to commit extortion" by padding department contracts and rigging bids
that netted his business associates millions. Although many of those
contracts are now being scrutinized by the city's legal team, Detroiters
are still paying dearly for the fraud of past leaders.

The
overbearing Detroit water debt has a human side, too: it has pushed
Detroit into an outright humanitarian crisis. Rates of infectious
disease and sickness are up dramatically, leading the National Nurses
union recently to declare a 'Public Health Emergency' in Detroit.⁵The
water department is significantly under-staffed and water infrastructure
is crumbling, leading to leaks that cost taxpayers tens of millions
annually. The department is unable to address these time-sensitive
issues due to lack of funding, as it currently spends 46% of its
operating revenue on debt service to banks - the largest line-item by
far in its budget.

We call on the City of
Detroit and the newly-formed Great Lakes Water Authority to cancel the
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department's existing debts and start afresh
with simple, affordable rates: all customer past-due balances are wiped
clean.

Detroit's existing
water/sewerage rate structure is highly-regressive and unaffordable for
too many families. We call on the city to implement the 2005 Water
Affordability Plan to ensure that no family pays more than the
EPA-recommended threshold for water, including "lifeline rates" for
essential quantities of drinking/bathing water.⁶

The
water department acknowledges that 90% of its operating costs are
fixed⁷, meaning they don't depend upon how much water is consumed by
users. Still, they charge usage-based rates that fluctuate dramatically
with weather (up to 18% decrease in usage) and with broader demographic
shifts in the region (2/3 of Detroit's population has left the city
since 1950). Creating a progressive rate structure based at least
partially upon a family's income - as is done with many public services
like streetlights, schools, libraries, etc - would more equitably
distribute the burden of operating a system relied upon by over 4
million people for essential drinking water.

The
Detroit Water Brigade has provided emergency relief and advocacy to
hundreds of families since June of 2014, including providing immediate
financial assistance to families currently without water.⁸We've seen
first-hand the disastrous effects of these harsh, debt-driven austerity
policies.

We pledge to escalate this
campaign in the coming months until we bring relief to the tens of
thousands of metro Detroit families living without water today and the
millions living precariously with unaffordable water rates.

In
1972 a young white prison guard named Brent Miller was fatally stabbed
inside Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as “Angola.” Although
no physical evidence tied Albert Woodfox to the crime, he was
immediately assumed to be guilty and placed in solitary confinement; 23
hours a day isolated in a small cell, four steps long, three steps
across. He was eventually convicted of the crime after trials
tainted with constitutional violations and other legal issues, and has
been held in solitary confinement, fighting to prove his innocence ever
since.

Albert believes that he and fellow prisoners, Herman Wallace and Robert
King, were placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for their
activism and outspoken critique of injustice. All three men were members
of the Black Panther Party and campaigned for better treatment, racial
solidarity, and an end to the brutal sexual slavery in prison. Woodfox,
Wallace and King came to be known as the Angola 3.

Albert Woodfox’s conviction has been overturned three times - most
recently in 2013 on the basis of racial discrimination in the selection
of a grand jury foreperson. In late 2014, an appeals court upheld the
decision in Alberts favor, and on February 6, his lawyers filed for
bail. After years of the State of Louisiana appealing decisions in
Albert’s favor, It is critical that Governor Bobby Jindal show
leadership, and ensure that Albert’s cruel and unjust isolation is not
his legacy. April 2015 will mark 43 years since Woodfox was
first placed solitary - for a crime he maintains that he didn't' commit,
a claim that much of the available evidence supports. It is time for
the State to let the wisdom of the courts stand and ensure his release.

Amnesty International
http://act.amnestyusa.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1839&ea.campaign.id=35593&ea.tracking.id=Country_USA~MessagingCategory_PrisonersandPeopleatRisk&ac=W1502EAIAR2&ea.url.id=359128&forwarded=true

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Rasmea Odeh sentenced to 18 months, but is coming home!

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:18 AM, Prisoner News wrote:

Over
the objections of a prosecution team that called for 5-7 years in
federal prison, a harsh sentence with terrorism enhancements, Judge
Gershwin Drain sentenced Rasmea Odeh, Chicago’s 67-year-old Palestinian
community leader, to 18 months for Unlawful Procurement of
Naturalization, of which she was convicted last November.Almost
200 of Rasmea’s supporters filled two courtrooms in the Detroit federal
courthouse, and left disappointed but not defeated. “This is a blow,
of course, but we have to remember that the government wanted the judge
to lock Rasmea up for half a decade or more,” said Muhammad Sankari of
the national Rasmea Defense Committee. “Judge Drain had to weigh the
outpouring of support that Rasmea has inspired from across the country.
We made it impossible for the judge to justify an extended prison term,
and now, we will stand with her in the fight to appeal the conviction
itself, to make sure she doesn’t serve one day of that prison sentence.”The
decision came after her attorneys argued that she not be imprisoned at
all. Seventy important leaders of unions and community-based,
faith-based, civil rights, and student organizations, as well as
prominent academics and activists, wrote letters to the judge in the
past few weeks, urging him to issue a sentence with no prison time
beyond the month Rasmea served in a county jail following the November
verdict. They cited her invaluable service as a community leader in
Chicago, as well as concerns for her age, poor health, and chronic
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).One
of the many letters of support came from Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of
Detroit. He wrote, “I am asking for compassion in her sentencing.
Rasmea has much to offer her community…keeping her out of prison would
allow her to continue as a contributing and productive person, doing the
work that is so critical to hundreds of refugee women.”For
their part, prosecutors called for Judge Drain to issue a sentence far
beyond standard sentencing guidelines. While prosecutors had been barred
from branding her a terrorist in front of the jury last year, today
they were bound by no such court orders, asking that a terrorism
enhancement be added to prolong her sentence.Frank
Chapman of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
said, “The government showed their true colors today, making it clear
this case was never about immigration, but rather, the political
persecution of a Palestinian hero. What they didn’t bargain for is that
Rasmea would defend herself, and that thousands would rally around her.”During
the trial last year, Rasmea was prevented from presenting evidence
about the events that led to her conviction by an Israeli military
tribunal 45 years ago. Judge Drain had ruled that the circumstances of
conviction by Israel didn’t matter. “Not the illegal 1967 massacres and
occupation - let alone the military ethnic cleansing of 750,000
Palestinians from the land and their homes when Palestine was
partitioned in 1948 - not the midnight sweeps and kidnapping by the
invading Army after the 1967 war, not the torture, not the kangaroo
court and false confessions, not the prison time,” said her attorneys in
filings to the court."Be strong whatever happens," Rasmea said before speaking to the judge, "I am strong."After
the sentencing, Rasmea was released on bond, as she sets out to appeal
her conviction. Surprising many, the prosecution did not object,
despite having pressed for her bond to be revoked after the guilty
verdict. She credits the work of her supporters across the country for
forcing the government’s hand.Zena Ozeir of the Z Collective
in Detroit said, “I have no doubt Rasmea’s freedom today is owed to the
public outcry against her persecution. The government is still out to
lock her up for years, but that is something they couldn’t win today. We
have been with her at every hearing and trial date, we’ve held protests
across the country, and flooded their phone lines and mail boxes, with
people of conscience demanding an end to this prosecution, and an end to
her unjust treatment in jail this fall. We will not stop until we win
justice for Rasmea!”After today’s
hearing, Rasmea returns to Chicago, where she will continue her
important community activism and work with her attorneys on an appeal of
the verdict. If Odeh loses her case on appeal, she will have to serve
the full sentence, and then lose her citizenship and be subject to
immediate removal from the United States.

It
has come to our attention while observing the nuclear negotiations
between Iran and the United States government that a group of 47 U.S.
Senators are attempting, against the will of the majority of the
American people, to sabotage any agreement due to their hope of creating
additional conflict between our country and the people of Iran.

We
would also like to bring to your attention that many people in the
United States are aware that the United States government is in
violation of a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law. The
treaty imposes an affirmative obligation on the United States and all
other countries possessing nuclear weapons to act to diminish and
eventually eliminate all of their existing nuclear weapons as a
condition for relieving non-nuclear countries of the need to acquire
such terrifying weapons. The official name of this treaty is the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or NPT.
We also wanted to
bring to your attention that under the U.S. Constitution, (Article 6,
Clause 2), any treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law “shall
be the supreme law of the land” in the United States.

Article
VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires the United States as
a nuclear power to: “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control". (our
emphasis)

We wanted to make sure that you were aware that the
U.S. Constitution, recognizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the
supreme law of the land in the United States, requires government
officials to carry out two specific tasks:

First, to eliminate
the U.S. nuclear arsenal under its Treaty pledge of “general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control;”

And second, to “pursue negotiations in good faith” with other nations for the achievement of nuclear disarmament.

As things stand, the United States is in violation of this “supreme law of the land.”

The
United States is not ridding itself of nuclear weapons. It possesses
thousands of operational nuclear weapons that it is not destroying. In
fact, it is in the process of improving their capability, deploying them
on updated fighter aircraft, and other land-attack missiles, aircraft
carriers and submarine platforms at the cost of hundreds of billions of
dollars in new government funding.
The United States also provides
more than $4 billion in military and economic aid to the state of Israel
although Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
or allow outside inspectors, and does not deny that it possesses a
considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons. We are not aware of any call by
U.S. officials insisting that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty or begin liquidating its own nuclear arsenal.

We,
the people of the United States, are also aware that Iran as a signatory
to the same Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has the absolute legal
right, as do all signatory countries, to develop a nuclear capability
for civilian energy purposes.

Article IV of the Treaty states:
“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the
inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

As
a side note, we are also aware that when your country was ruled by a
monarch installed in power in 1953 as a consequence of a CIA led-coup
against the then constitutional government in Iran, the policy of the
U.S. government was to encourage the development of an Iranian nuclear
program.
We hope that this letter enriches your understanding that
the spirit and content of the Open Letter by 47 Republican Senators does
not conform with the views and desires of a broad section of public
opinion inside the United States.

Their real aim in scuttling
and sabotaging the current negotiations between the United States and
Iran, perhaps unprecedented in the form they have chosen, is to create
more conflict including the danger of military action against Iran.

Be assured that the last thing the American people want is war with or against Iran.
-- Add your name to these initial signers:

PHSS
and many other co-sponsors and endorsers are conducting actions
statewide in CA, nationwide, and internationally. These actions
coincides with 2013 proposals for action from Pelican Bay State Prison
Hunger Strikers, which calls for “…designating a certain date each month
as Prisoner Rights Day. … [when] supporters would gather … throughout
California to expose CDCR’s actions and rally to support efforts to
secure our rights.”

We choose the 23rd of each month for the 23 or more hours every day that people are kept alone in 7 by 11 foot concrete cells.

Questions or want to be added as co-sponsor or endorser? phssreachingout@gmail.com
http://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com
@CAHungerStrike
Find us on Facebook
Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Save the Date - UNAC National Conference, May 8 - 10, 2015

UNAC
is the major national antiwar coalition in the U.S. today. The
existence of a United National Antiwar Coalition is vital and we need
your financial support to continue our work and to expand.

With
U.S. wars today accelerating and expanding globally in various forms –
from drone attacks on Yemen and Pakistan, never-ending wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, support to neo-fascists in Ukraine, and proliferating
Africom forces to threats of war for regime change in Syria – we have an
obligation to do whatever is possible to educate the public and to take
action to stop the carnage.

The wars abroad are
connected to global warming with most wars fought over energy resources
with the U.S. war machine as the largest polluter.

At
home, we see hugely growing income inequality, a militarized and racist
police force, mass incarceration of Blacks and Latinos, and a massive
police state apparatus that includes global surveillance and laws to
quell dissent.

In spite of the trillions spent by the
U.S. corporate war government and its controlled media propaganda
machine to keep us in check, the people are fighting back. We’ve been
inspired and strengthened by the hundreds of thousands of new activists
taking to the streets of this country to stop police brutality, to build
Occupy encampments, to fight for decent wages, to demand full rights
for immigrants, to win marriage equality, to end global warming, to
demonstrate solidarity with the besieged people of Gaza, and to protest
unending U.S. wars.

UNAC has played an active, often
leadership role, in all of the antiwar and social justice movements of
our time. While most activists are focused on their particular issues,
the most vital role we can play is to connect the issues to their
source. All of the injustices and crimes we protest, stem from the
imperialist insatiable drive for expanding profit and control – and the
U.S. is the largest imperialist power militarily and economically. When
there should be plenty for all, only the obscenely wealthy benefit
while the rest of the 99% struggle just to survive.

Some of our recent major accomplishments:
· Initiated protest against NATO and 15,000 marched in Chicago in 2012.
·
Called for immediate actions against threats of war and coups directed
at Libya, Iran, No. Korea, Africa, Latin America, Ukraine, and
maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
· Organized a national tour for Afghan leader Malalai Joya.
· Sent representatives to international NATO protests and conferences.
·
Serve on the Board of the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms
to act against Islamophobia , racist attacks on Muslims, and attacks on
our civil liberties.
· Participated in national efforts to organize anti-drone actions.
·
Campaigned to defend victims of government repression who speak out and
expose Washington’s crimes, including Rasmea Odeh, Mumia abu Jamal,
Lynne Stewart, Chelsea Manning, and the Midwest activists targeted by
the FBI.
· Produced national educational conference calls
featuring experts on topics such as U.S. intervention in Africa, the
destruction of Libya, the developing wars in Syria, and others.
·
Built an antiwar contingent in the massive New York City Climate Change
march and built Climate Change action in other cities around the
country.
· Helped organize protests against Israel’s attack on Gaza
·
Helped organize protests against the murder of Blacks by white police
and the militarization of the police forces in the U.S.

UNAC
has a history of bringing hundreds of activists together at large
national conferences to learn about the issues of the day, to discuss
the way forward and to vote on an Action Program for the coming period.

The
UNAC conference next May will bring activists from all the movements in
motion to cross-fertilize these struggles. We are particularly
dedicated to bringing young activists together to support and learn from
each other. For this, we need your help to offer subsidies to leaders
from Ferguson, from the border wars in the southwest, from the Native
Americans who are fighting against the pipelines ruining their lands,
from the Students for Justice in Palestine, and many others.

Please give generously so that we can continue our work to bring harmony and justice to the peoples of this earth.

You
can send a check to UNAC at PO Box 123, Delmar, NY 12054 or click the
button below to contribute on-line with your credit or debit card.

https://www.unacpeace.org/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

On Behalf of Wadiya Jamal and Mumia Abu-Jamal,A Contribution Request

The message following is a forward from:
Rachel Wolkenstein
Sister, Advocate and Friend of the Extended Family

Samiya
“Goldii” Abdullah, a daughter of Wadiya Jamal and Mumia Abu-Jamal died
on December 17, 2014 after years of battle with breast cancer. Samiya
would have been 37 this January 9 and is survived by two young
daughters, Aiyanah and Aaiyah, affectionately known as Dolly and Puddy,
ages eleven and four.

Samiya was a remarkable woman. She was
accomplished as a musician, an activist and rapper on social justice,
particularly in the struggle for Mumia’s freedom. She devoured books and
education. During her long, often debilitating illness, Samiya finished
her Masters Degree in School and Mental Health Counseling from the
University of Pennsylvania with honors. She was dedicated to her young
daughters and wanted them to grow up loving each other as much as she
did her brothers and sisters. And she wanted her daughters to see Mumia
(called “Pop Pop” by them) walk out of prison and home with their
grandmother, Wadiya.

Samiya's active fight for Mumia's freedom,
began at the young age of four. Mumia wrote about this in “The Visit”
printed in Live from Death Row in 1994. This was recreated in the movie
"Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary."

"My father is still
considered to be a dangerous individual … his mind is what they fear,
there is over- whelming evidence that would exonerate him of his
conviction.
"He is an innocent man and the commonwealth has always
known this, but being too Black, too smart, and too strong … The
government will silence anyone that possesses the power to open the
minds of the people."
—Goldii

Samiya’s strength, character and spirit were nurtured by Wadiya and Mumia and are being passed on to her daughters.

On
behalf of Wadiya Jamal and Mumia Abu-Jamal, this is a request for funds
to assist Wadiya for care of her granddaughters, Dolly and Puddy.

Donate Now
to fight the “gag” law!
go to:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/protect-freedom-of-speech-keep-mumia-on-the-air

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Support Prison Radio

$35 is the yearly membership.

$50 will get you a beautiful tote bag (you can special order a yoga mat bag, just call us).

$100 will get the DVD "Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary"

$300 will bring one essay to the airwaves.

$1000 (or $88.83 per month) will make you a member of our Prison Radio Freedom Circle. Take a moment and Support Prison Radio

Luchando por la justicia y la libertad,

Noelle Hanrahan, Director, Prison Radio

PRISON RADIO

P.O. Box 411074 San Francisco, CA 94141

www.prisonradio.org
info@prisonradio.org 415-706-5222

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Campaign to Free Lorenzo Johnson

Lorenzo Speaks Concerning Prosecution's Brief:
JANUARY
1, 2015—The prosecutor has run away from (almost) every issue raised in
my PCRA by begging the Court to dismiss everything as “untimely”. When
they don’t do this, they suggest that me and my lawyers were
“defamatory” towards either my former prosecutor Christopher Abruzzo or
Detective Kevin Duffin, in our claims they withheld, misused or hid
evidence of my Innocence, in order to secure an unjust conviction in
this case. If I charged, a year ago, that about a dozen AGs (attorneys
general) were involved in circulating porno via their office computers,
people would’ve laughed at me, and seen me as crazy.

But,
guess what? During 2014, we learned that this was the truth. How can it
be defamatory to speak the truth? Notice the OAG (Office of Attorney
General), never said the obvious: That AG Abruzzo didn’t inform the
Defense about the relationship between his Motive Witness and his head
detective (Victoria Doubs and Det. Duffin); that Det. Duffin doesn’t
deny Doubs was his god-sister, and that she lived in his family home, or
that he assisted her whenever she got into trouble.

Why
not? Because it is true. How can you defame someone who defames
himself? Mr. Christopher Abruzzo, Esq., when a member of the higher
ranks of the OAG, sent and/or received copious amounts of porno to other
attorneys general and beyond. What does this say about his sense of
judgment? He thought enough about his behavior to resign from his post
in the Governor’s Cabinet. If he thought that his behavior was okay,
he’d still be sitting in the Governor’s cabinet, right? The OAG cannot
honestly oppose anything we’ve argued, but they try by seeking to get
the Court to do their dirty work, how? By denying an Evidentiary Hearing
to prove every point we’ve claimed.

The prosecution is
trying desperately to avoid dealing with the substance of my claims in
Com. v. Lorenzo Johnson. So, they slander my Legal Team and blame them
for defaming the good AG’s and Cops involved with this case. They try to
do what is undeniable, to deny that they hid evidence from the Defense
for years. They blamed me for daring to protest the hidden evidence of
their malfeasance and other acts to sabotage the defense. They claim
that they had an “Open File” policy with my trial counsel. But “Open
File” is more than letting an attorney read something in their office.
If it’s a search for the truth it must include what is turned over to
the attorney, for how do we really know what was shown to her?

They
say it is inconceivable that an attorney would read a file, beginning
on page nine (9), and not ask for the preceding eight (8) pages. Yet, it
is conceivable if trial counsel was ineffective for not demanding the
record of the first eight pages. Pages that identify the State’s only
witness as a “SUSPECT” in the murder for which her client was charged!
How could such an attorney fail to recognize the relevance of such an
issue, barring their sheer Ineffectiveness and frankly, Incompetence.

By
seeking to avoid an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution seeks to avoid
evidence of their wrongdoing being made plain, for all to see. If they
believe I’m wrong, why not prove it? They can’t. So they shout I filed
my appeal untimely, as if there can ever justly be a rule that precludes
an innocent from proving his innocence! Not to mention the fact that
the prosecution has failed to even mention the positive finger prints
that ay my trial they said none existed. Don’t try to hide it with a
lame argument about time. When isn’t there a time for truth? The
prosecution should be ashamed of itself for taking this road. It is
unworthy of an office that claims to seek justice.

After
the trial verdict The Patriot-News (March 18, 1997) reported, “Deputy
Attorney General Christopher Abruzzo admitted there were some serious
concerns about the strength of the evidence against Johnson and praised
the jury for doing a thorough job.” I guess he forgot to mention all of
the evidence he left out to show Innocence.

Now, more than ever, Lorenzo Johnson needs your support.
Publicize his case; bring it to your friends, clubs, religious
and social organizations.

On
December 15, 2014 the Rev. Edward Pinkney of Benton Harbor, Michigan
was thrown into prison for 2.5 to 10 years. This 66-year-old leading
African American activist was tried and convicted in front of an
all-white jury and racist white judge and prosecutor for supposedly
altering 5 dates on a recall petition against the mayor of Benton
Harbor.

The prosecutor, with the judge’s approval, repeatedly
told the jury “you don’t need evidence to convict Mr. Pinkney.” And
ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PRESENTED THAT TIED REV. PINKNEY TO THE
‘ALTERED’ PETITIONS. Rev. Pinkney was immediately led away in handcuffs
and thrown into Jackson Prison.

This is an outrageous charge. It is an outrageous conviction. It is an even more outrageous sentence! It must be appealed.

With your help supporters need to raise $20,000 for Rev. Pinkney’s appeal.

Checks
can be made out to BANCO (Black Autonomy Network Community
Organization). This is the organization founded by Rev. Pinkney. Mail
them to: Mrs. Dorothy Pinkney, 1940 Union Street, Benton Harbor, MI
49022.

Donations can be accepted on-line at bhbanco.org – press the donate button.

For information on the decade long campaign to destroy Rev. Pinkney go to bhbanco.org and workers.org(search “Pinkney”).

We urge your support to the efforts to Free Rev. Pinkney!Ramsey Clark – Former U.S. attorney general,Cynthia McKinney – Former member of U.S. Congress,Lynne Stewart – Former political prisoner and human rights attorneyRalph Poynter – New Abolitionist Movement,Abayomi Azikiwe – Editor, Pan-African News Wire<Larry Holmes – Peoples Power Assembly,David Sole – Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & InjusticeSara Flounders – International Action Center

MESSAGE FROM REV. PINKNEY

I
am now in Marquette prison over 15 hours from wife and family, sitting
in prison for a crime that was never committed. Judge Schrock and Mike
Sepic both admitted there was no evidence against me but now I sit in
prison facing 30 months. Schrock actually stated that he wanted to make
an example out of me. (to scare Benton Harbor residents even more...)
ONLY IN AMERICA. I now have an army to help fight Berrien County. When I
arrived at Jackson state prison on Dec. 15, I met several hundred
people from Detroit, Flint, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids. Some people
recognized me. There was an outstanding amount of support given by the
prison inmates. When I was transported to Marquette Prison it took 2
days. The prisoners knew who I was. One of the guards looked me up on
the internet and said, "who would believe Berrien County is this
racist."

New Court Date on 4 Motions for Rev. Pinkney

TUES, FEB. 24 1pm Berrien County Court

Background to Campaign to free Rev. Pinkney

Michigan
political prisoner the Rev. Edward Pinkney is a victim of racist
injustice. He was sentenced to 30 months to 10 years for supposedly
changing the dates on 5 signatures on a petition to recall Benton Harbor
Mayor James Hightower.

No material or circumstantial evidence
was presented at the trial that would implicate Pinkney in the
purported5 felonies. Many believe that Pinkney, a Berrien County
activist and leader of the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization
(BANCO), is being punished by local authorities for opposing the
corporate plans of Whirlpool Corp, headquartered in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.

In 2012, Pinkney and BANCO led an “Occupy the PGA
[Professional Golfers’ Association of America]” demonstration against a
world-renowned golf tournament held at the newly created Jack Nicklaus
Signature Golf Course on the shoreline of Lake Michigan. The course was
carved out of Jean Klock Park, which had been donated to the city of
Benton Harbor decades ago.

Berrien County officials were
determined to defeat the recall campaign against Mayor Hightower, who
opposed a program that would have taxed local corporations in order to
create jobs and improve conditions in Benton Harbor, a majority
African-American municipality. Like other Michigan cities, it has been
devastated by widespread poverty and unemployment.

The Benton
Harbor corporate power structure has used similar fraudulent charges to
stop past efforts to recall or vote out of office the racist white
officials, from mayor, judges, prosecutors in a majority Black city. Rev
Pinkney who always quotes scripture, as many Christian ministers do,
was even convicted for quoting scripture in a newspaper column. This
outrageous conviction was overturned on appeal. We must do this again!

To sign the petition in support of the Rev. Edward Pinkney, log on to: tinyurl.com/ps4lwyn.

President Obama has delegated review of Chelsea Manning’s clemency appeal to individuals within the Department of Defense. Please write them to express your support for heroic
WikiLeaks’ whistle-blower former US Army intelligence analyst PFC
Chelsea Manning’s release from military prison.
It is important that each of these authorities realize the wide
support that Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning enjoys worldwide. They
need to be reminded that millions understand that Manning is a political
prisoner, imprisoned for following her conscience. While it is highly
unlikely that any of these individuals would independently move to
release Manning, a reduction in Manning’s outrageous 35-year prison
sentence is a possibility at this stage.Take action TODAY – Write letters supporting Chelsea’s clemency petition to the following DoD authorities:Secretary of the Army John McHugh

101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0101

The Judge Advocate General
2200 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-2200

The letter should focus on your support for Chelsea Manning, and
especially why you believe justice will be served if Chelsea Manning’s
sentence is reduced. The letter should NOT be anti-military as this will be unlikely to help

A suggested message: “Chelsea Manning has been
punished enough for violating military regulations in the course of
being true to her conscience. I urge you to use your authorityto reduce
Pvt. Manning’s sentence to time served.” Beyond that general message,
feel free to personalize the details as to why you believe Chelsea
deserves clemency.

Consider composing your letter on personalized letterhead -you can create this yourself (here are templates and some tips for doing that).

A comment on this post will NOT be seen by DoD authorities–please send your letters to the addresses above

This clemency petition is separate from Chelsea Manning’s upcoming
appeal before the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals next year, where
Manning’s new attorney Nancy Hollander will have an opportunity to
highlight the prosecution’s—and the trial judge’s—misconduct during last
year’s trial at Ft. Meade, Maryland.

Help us continue to cover 100% of Chelsea’s legal fees at this critical stage!

As
my children, and my friends’ children, are getting older, a question
that comes up again and again from friends is this: Which would I rather
my children use — alcohol or marijuana?

The immediate answer, of
course, is “neither.” But no parent accepts that. It’s assumed, and not
incorrectly, that the vast majority of adolescents will try one or the
other, especially when they go to college. So they press me further.

But these are all associations, not known causal pathways. It may be, for instance, that people predisposed to psychosis
are more likely to use pot. We don’t know. Moreover, all of these
potential dangers seem scary only when viewed in isolation. Put them
next to alcohol, and everything looks different.

Because
marijuana is illegal, the first thing I think about before answering is
crime. In many states, being caught with marijuana is much worse than
being caught with alcohol while underage. But ignoring the relationship
between alcohol and crime is a big mistake. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence reports that alcohol use
is a factor in 40 percent of all violent crimes in the United States,
including 37 percent of rapes and 27 percent of aggravated assaults.

No
such association has been found among marijuana users. Although there
are studies that can link marijuana to crime, it’s almost all centered on its illegal distribution. People who are high are not committing violence.

People will argue that casual use isn’t the issue; it’s abuse that’s worrisome for crime. They’re right — but for alcohol. A recent study in Pediatrics
investigated the factors associated with death in delinquent youth.
Researchers found that about 19 percent of delinquent males and 11
percent of delinquent females had an alcohol use disorder. Further, they
found that even five years after detention, those with an alcohol use
disorder had a 4.7 times greater risk of death from external causes,
like homicide, than those without an alcohol disorder.

When I’m
debating my answer, I think about health as well. Once again, there’s no
comparison. Binge drinking accounted for about half of the more than
80,000 alcohol-related deaths in the United States in 2010, according to
a 2012 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The economic costs associated with excessive alcohol consumption in the
United States were estimated to be about $225 billion dollars. Binge
drinking, defined as four or more drinks for women and five or more
drinks for men on a single occasion, isn’t rare either. More than 17
percent of all people in the United States are binge drinkers, and more
than 28 percent of people age 18 to 24.

Binge drinking is more common among people with a household income of at least $75,000. This is a solid middle-class problem.

Marijuana, on the other hand, kills almost no one. The number of deaths attributed to marijuana use is pretty much zero. A study
that tracked more than 45,000 Swedes for 15 years found no increase in
mortality in those who used marijuana, after controlling for other
factors. Another study published
in the American Journal of Public Health followed more than 65,000
people in the United States and found that marijuana use had no effect
at all on mortality in healthy men and women.

I think about which is more dangerous when driving. A 2013 case-control study
found that marijuana use increased the odds of being in a fatal crash
by 83 percent. But adding alcohol to drug use increased the odds of a
fatal crash by more than 2,200 percent. A more recent study found that,
after controlling for various factors, a detectable amount of THC, the
active ingredient in pot, in the blood did not increase the risk of
accidents at all. Having a blood alcohol level of at least 0.05 percent,
though, increased the odds of being in a crash by 575 percent.

I
think about which substance might put young people at risk for being
hurt by others. That’s where things become even more stark. In 1995
alone, college students reported
more than 460,000 alcohol-related incidents of violence in the United
States. A 2011 prospective study found that mental and physical dating
abuse were more common on drinking days among college students. On the other hand, a 2014 study looking at marijuana use and intimate partner violence
in the first nine years of marriage found that those who used marijuana
had lower rates of such violence. Indeed, the men who used marijuana
the most were the least likely to commit violence against a partner.Most
people come out of college not dependent on the substances they
experimented with there. But some do. So I also consider which of the
two might lead to abuse. Even there, alcohol fares poorly compared with
marijuana. While 9 percent of pot users eventually become dependent, more than 20 percent of alcohol users do.

An often-quoted, although hotly debated, study in the Lancet
ranked many drugs according to their harm score, both to users and to
others. Alcohol was clearly in the lead. One could make a case, though,
that heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine would be worse if they
were legal and more commonly used. But it’s hard to see how pot could
overtake alcohol even if it were universally legal. Use of marijuana is
not rare, even now when it’s widely illegal to buy and use. It’s
estimated that almost half of Americans age 18 to 20 have tried it at some point in their lives; more than a third of them have used it in the last year.

I
also can’t ignore what I’ve seen as a pediatrician. I’ve seen young
people brought to the emergency room because they’ve consumed too much
alcohol and become poisoned. That happens thousands of times a year. Some even die.

And when my oldest child heads off to college in the not-too-distant future, this is what I will think of: Every year more than 1,800
college students die from alcohol-related accidents. About 600,000 are
injured while under alcohol’s influence, almost 700,000 are assaulted,
and almost 100,000 are sexually assaulted. About 400,000 have
unprotected sex, and 100,000 are too drunk to know if they consented.
The numbers for pot aren’t even in the same league.

I’m a
pediatrician, as well as a parent. I can, I suppose, demand that my
children, and those I care for in a clinic, never engage in risky
behavior. But that doesn’t work. Many will still engage in sexual
activity, for instance, no matter how much I preach about the risk of a
sexually transmitted infection or pregnancy.
Because of that, I have conversations about how to minimize risk by
making informed choices. While no sex is preferable to unprotected sex,
so is sex with a condom. Talking about the harm reduction from condom use doesn’t mean I’m telling them to have sex.

Similarly,
none of these arguments I’ve presented are “pro pot” in the sense that
I’m saying that adolescents should go use marijuana without worrying
about consequences. There’s little question that marijuana carries with
it risks to people who use it, as well as to the nation. The number of
people who will be hurt from it, will hurt others because of it, begin
to abuse it, and suffer negative consequences from it are certainly
greater than zero. But looking only at those dangers, and refusing to
grapple with them in the context of our society’s implicit consent for
alcohol use in young adults, is irrational.

When someone asks me
whether I’d rather my children use pot or alcohol, after sifting through
all the studies and all the data, I still say “neither.” Usually, I say
it more than once. But if I’m forced to make a choice, the answer is
“marijuana.”

Aaron E. Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at
Indiana University School of Medicine. He blogs on health research and
policy at The Incidental Economist, and you can follow him on Twitter at @aaronecarroll.

The
man who had spent almost his entire adult life awaiting execution would
be able to go out for fried chicken, his favorite. Maybe he could
strike a movie deal. At the very least, Mr. McCollum remembers, people
told him that he would be a man of considerable wealth once the state
paid him the $750,000 he could seek under North Carolina law because he
had been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for decades.Mr. McCollum, 50,
was released from prison last September after DNA evidence showed that he did not rape
and murder a young girl in 1983. But since then, he and his half
brother, Leon Brown, who was also exonerated and freed from prison in
the same case, have led anything but a glamorous post-prison life.
Instead, because of legal decisions made to help accelerate their
release, as well as Gov. Pat McCrory’s deliberate approach to granting
what is known here as a pardon of innocence, both men have clung to a
minimal existence, absent substantive remuneration, counseling or public
aid in transitioning back to society.

“If the governor called
me, I would tell him the reason why I need his pardon: I would tell him I
deserve this pardon,” Mr. McCollum said. “I did 31 years in prison for a
crime I did not commit. I could have given up a long time ago and told
the state to kill me.

So far, though, Mr. McCrory has not acted
on the pardon applications of Mr. McCollum or Mr. Brown, whose I.Q.
scores were previously recorded in the 50s.

Because of the
approach lawyers used to secure swifter releases for the two men,
neither is entitled to wrongful conviction compensation until they get
pardons.

The men were teenagers — Mr. McCollum was 19 and Mr.
Brown was 15 — at the time of their September 1983 arrests in Red
Springs in the sexual assault and murder of an 11-year-old girl, Sabrina
Buie. They were convicted about a year later.

But Judge Douglas
B. Sasser of the Robeson County Superior Court concluded last year that
“no physical evidence, either at the time of their arrest or at any time
since, linked Mr. McCollum or Mr. Brown to the scene or the commission
of this crime.” Judge Sasser also found that the case against the men,
who are black, was built “almost entirely” on the inconsistent
confessions that they quickly recanted.

Mr.
McCollum and Mr. Brown each received $45 when they left prison and have
lived on charity since. They resided for a time at a home here, where
Mr. Brown slept on a couch in one room and Mr. McCollum’s mattress and
box spring rested on the floor in another.

Without money for a
car or any knowledge about how to drive one, the men walked to a grocery
store to buy subsistence fare like canned potatoes and pork and beans.
Mr. McCollum, who was a janitor while he was incarcerated, said he
wanted to apply for a job, but he was reluctant until he had a pardon.

Mr.
Brown, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, is far more
reticent than Mr. McCollum, but he talked of starting a church or a
radio ministry.

Both say that until Mr. McCrory issues them pardons, they cannot fully set aside what happened over about 31 years.

Theresa A. Newman, a co-director of the Wrongful Convictions Clinic
at the Duke Law School, said such sentiments were common among men who
had been cleared by judges but not by governors. She said the mostly
closed nature of the lengthy process could prove demoralizing.

“Just
having some information would be very, very powerful, and I think it
would hold these men up slightly,” said Ms. Newman, who is not involved
in the McCollum or Brown cases. “Why would they trust the state to do
the right thing?”

In a statement last week, a spokesman for Mr.
McCrory, Ryan Tronovitch, said, “Our extensive review is ongoing, and we
need to ensure that we have gathered and considered all relevant
information as part of our process. While we can’t put an exact time
frame on when a decision will come, this is a top priority for Governor
McCrory, and he has made that abundantly clear to those involved.”

Lawyers
here say the pardon process in North Carolina has been an enigmatic one
for far longer than Mr. McCrory’s term. But Ms. Newman said that when a
client of hers sought a pardon from Mr. McCrory, the governor had been
an active participant while he weighed his options. He even “grilled”
the man during an interview as part of a process that took about six
months, she said.

But what remains unclear is how, exactly, Mr.
McCrory’s process unfolds, and how much he considers any opposition to
pardon applications. In the cases of Mr. McCollum and Mr. Brown, there
is some, namely from the retired district attorney who prosecuted them.

The prosecutor, Joe Freeman Britt,
who came to be known as the nation’s “deadliest D.A.” because he won
death sentences so often, said: “There is no doubt in my mind that
they’re not entitled to a pardon, and there is no doubt in my mind that
they’re not entitled to compensation by the taxpayers.”

But the
current district attorney, Johnson Britt (who is of distant relation to
his predecessor), supported the men’s bids for freedom last year and
told Judge Sasser that “the state does not have a case” and would not
prosecute them again.

That support is partly why a lawyer for the
men, Scott Brettschneider, said he hoped that “there isn’t something
more here than just bureaucracy” as they waited for the governor’s
decision.

Recently, a bank bet that the delay was only
administrative, and it wrote a large enough loan that the men this week
began renting a home where they each have bedrooms. Mr. McCollum, who,
since leaving prison, has sometimes referred to a bedroom as a cell,
picked one at the top of a stairwell.

“This is my room right here,” he said softly as he looked around one afternoon. “This is my room.”

He
said his favorite feature of the room, more than twice the size of his
former cell on death row, is the lock on the wooden door. He can lock it
— and unlock it — himself.

FERGUSON,
Mo. — A 20-year-old suspect was charged Sunday with shooting two police
officers during a protest outside Police Headquarters here Thursday.
Law enforcement officials said the man, Jeffrey L. Williams, claimed to
have been targeting someone other than the officers and shot them by
accident from inside a car.

Mr. Williams was arrested late
Saturday and charged with first-degree assault in connection with the
shooting, which had ratcheted up tensions between the police and
protesters here. With the gunman at large, the officers guarding the
police station as demonstrations continued had concerns for their
safety, while protesters had criticized police officials for suggesting
that the shooting was linked to them.

Discord has been simmering since Aug. 9, when a white police officer, Darren Wilson,
fatally shot an unarmed, 18-year-old black man, Michael Brown, in a
confrontation in the middle of a street. A grand jury declined to indict
Mr. Wilson in November.The arrest seemed to resolve almost none of the
tension, and Mr. Williams’s motive was unclear. Prosecutors expressed
skepticism at his version of events, but said he had attended the
demonstration the evening of the shooting as well as previous rallies.
Several protest leaders, however, quickly took to Twitter to deny that
Mr. Williams was one of them, or that they had even seen him among the
crowd the night of the shooting.

The authorities said Mr.
Williams, who was on probation at the time of the shooting for receiving
stolen property, admitted his involvement to investigators and
acknowledged firing the shots. He told investigators that he had a
dispute with some people outside the police station that had nothing to
do with the demonstration, officials said.

“It’s possible at this point that he was firing shots at someone other than the police, but struck the police officers,” Robert P. McCulloch,
the prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County, said at a news
conference Sunday afternoon at the Buzz Westfall Justice Center in
Clayton, Mo., the seat of St. Louis County. “He has stated that he may
have had a dispute with some other individuals. I’m not sure we
completely buy that part of it. But in any event, it’s possible he was
firing at some other people.”

Mr. McCulloch added: “We’re not 100
percent sure that there was a dispute. That’s part of the claim right
now. It’s possible that there was a dispute. It’s possible that he was
targeting police officers. We just have to wait for the investigation to
develop.”

By Friday, the investigation had appeared stalled. The
break in the case that pointed to Mr. Williams as the primary suspect
appeared to come from tips and information provided by members of the
public. Investigators recovered a .40-caliber handgun they believed had
been used in the shooting. Mr. McCulloch said more arrests were
possible.

Ferguson’s mayor, James Knowles III,
and City Council members said in a statement that they were grateful to
citizens who had provided assistance, and that while they supported
peaceful protesting, they would “not allow, nor tolerate, the
destructive and violent actions of a few to disrupt our unifying
efforts.”

In a statement from Washington, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,
whose Justice Department released a scathing report that found
widespread misconduct, racial bias and unconstitutional practices by
Ferguson’s police department and its municipal courts, praised “the
swiftness of this action.”

“This arrest sends a clear message
that acts of violence against our law enforcement personnel will never
be tolerated,” Mr. Holder said.

At the St. Louis address listed
in court documents as Mr. Williams’s residence, no one answered the door
of the blue-clapboard house, on a tree-lined street about five miles
from the police station. A woman who later entered the house declined to
comment. Mr. Williams, who will turn 21 in two weeks, remained in
custody; bond was set at $300,000.

DeRay McKesson, who has been
participating in and documenting the demonstrations on social media,
said that to his knowledge, Mr. Williams was not “a regular member of
the protest community in St. Louis.”

Mr. McKesson criticized the
way the police handled the investigation, pointing to previous
statements made by Chief Jon M. Belmar of the St. Louis County Police
Department in which he called the shooting an ambush and said the
shooter may have been embedded with the demonstrators. Both of those
assertions have been called into question now, Mr. McKesson said.

What
Chief Belmar said “was intentionally said to incite and invoke fear,”
Mr. McKesson said. “This does not change the momentum of the protesters.
This person was not aligned with the protest community and the values
within.”

The two officers — one from the county police and the
other from the nearby Webster Groves department — were standing shoulder
to shoulder outside the police station Thursday shortly after midnight
as part of a protective line facing demonstrators across the street. At
least three gunshots came from a distance behind the demonstrators, as
much as 125 yards away, the authorities said.

Demonstrators had
denounced the shooting, but vowed to continue marching and protesting,
saying they would not be distracted from seeking justice for Mr. Brown’s
killing and for systemic change in Ferguson’s police and court system.
Police officials had taken steps after the shooting to reduce the
visibility of the officers securing the police station, having them
stand behind parked vehicles rather than out in the open. And they had
taken a more hands-off approach to the demonstrators, allowing many to
occasionally block traffic in front of the police station and declining
to arrest those who ignored their orders to move onto the sidewalk.

The
two officers, whom the authorities have declined to name, were treated
at a hospital and are recuperating at home, according to Chief Belmar.
The Webster Groves officer, 32, a seven-year veteran, was shot in the
face, the bullet entering under his right eye and becoming lodged behind
his ear, officials said. The county officer, 41, a 14-year veteran, was
shot in the shoulder, with the bullet coming out of his back.

Manny Fernandez reported from Ferguson, and John Eligon from Kansas City, Mo.

A
powerful new surveillance tool being adopted by police departments
across the country comes with an unusual requirement: To buy it, law
enforcement officials must sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing
them from saying almost anything about the technology.

Any
disclosure about the technology, which tracks cellphones and is often
called StingRay, could allow criminals and terrorists to circumvent it,
the F.B.I.
has said in an affidavit. But the tool is adopted in such secrecy that
communities are not always sure what they are buying or whether the
technology could raise serious privacy concerns.

The
confidentiality has elevated the stakes in a longstanding debate about
the public disclosure of government practices versus law enforcement’s
desire to keep its methods confidential. While companies routinely
require nondisclosure agreements for technical products, legal experts
say these agreements raise questions and are unusual given the privacy
and even constitutional issues at stake.

“It might be a totally
legitimate business interest, or maybe they’re trying to keep people
from realizing there are bigger privacy problems,” said Orin S. Kerr, a
privacy law expert at George Washington University. “What’s the secret
that they’re trying to hide?”

The issue led to a public dispute
three weeks ago in Silicon Valley, where a sheriff asked county
officials to spend $502,000 on the technology. The Santa Clara County
sheriff, Laurie Smith, said the technology allowed for locating
cellphones — belonging to, say, terrorists or a missing person. But when
asked for details, she offered no technical specifications and
acknowledged she had not seen a product demonstration.

Buying the technology, she said, required the signing of a nondisclosure agreement.

“So,
just to be clear,” Joe Simitian, a county supervisor, said, “we are
being asked to spend $500,000 of taxpayers’ money and $42,000 a year
thereafter for a product for the name brand which we are not sure of, a
product we have not seen, a demonstration we don’t have, and we have a
nondisclosure requirement as a precondition. You want us to vote and
spend money,” he continued, but “you can’t tell us more about it.”

The technology goes by various names, including StingRay, KingFish or, generically, cell site simulator. It is a rectangular device, small enough to fit into a suitcase, that intercepts a cellphone signal by acting like a cellphone tower.

The
technology can also capture texts, calls, emails and other data, and
prosecutors have received court approval to use it for such purposes.

Cell
site simulators are catching on while law enforcement officials are
adding other digital tools, like video cameras, license-plate readers,
drones, programs that scan billions of phone records and gunshot
detection sensors. Some of those tools have invited resistance from
municipalities and legislators on privacy grounds.

The
nondisclosure agreements for the cell site simulators are overseen by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and typically involve the Harris
Corporation, a multibillion-dollar defense contractor and a maker of the
technology. What has opponents particularly concerned about StingRay is
that the technology, unlike other phone surveillance methods, can also
scan all the cellphones in the area where it is being used, not just the
target phone.

“It’s scanning the area. What is the government
doing with that information?” said Linda Lye, a lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which in 2013 sued the Justice Department
to force it to disclose more about the technology. In November, in a
response to the lawsuit, the government said it had asked the courts to
allow the technology to capture content, not just identify subscriber
location.

The nondisclosure agreements make it hard to know how
widely the technology has been adopted. But news reports from around the
country indicate use by local and state police agencies stretching from
Los Angeles to Wisconsin to New York, where the state police use it.
Some departments have used it for several years. Money for the devices
comes from individual agencies and sometimes, as in the case of Santa
Clara County, from the federal government through Homeland Security
grants.

Christopher Allen, an F.B.I. spokesman, said “location
information is a vital component” of law enforcement. The agency, he
said, “does not keep repositories of cell tower data for any purpose
other than in connection with a specific investigation.”

A fuller
explanation of the F.B.I.’s position is provided in two publicly sworn
affidavits about StingRay, including one filed in 2014 in Virginia. In
the affidavit, a supervisory special agent, Bradley S. Morrison, said
disclosure of the technology’s specifications would let criminals,
including terrorists, “thwart the use of this technology.”

“Disclosure
of even minor details” could harm law enforcement, he said, by letting
“adversaries” put together the pieces of the technology like assembling a
“jigsaw puzzle.” He said the F.B.I. had entered into the nondisclosure
agreements with local authorities for those reasons. In addition, he
said, the technology is related to homeland security and is therefore
subject to federal control.

In a second affidavit, given in 2011,
the same special agent acknowledged that the device could gather
identifying information from phones of bystanders. Such data “from all
wireless devices in the immediate area of the F.B.I. device that
subscribe to a particular provider may be incidentally recorded,
including those of innocent, nontarget devices.”

But, he added, that information is purged to ensure privacy rights.

In December, two senators, Patrick J. Leahy and Charles E. Grassley, sent a letter
expressing concerns about the scope of the F.B.I.’s StingRay use to
Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, and Jeh Johnson, the secretary
of Homeland Security.The Harris Corporation declined to comment,
according to Jim Burke, a company spokesman. Harris, based in Melbourne,
Fla., has $5 billion in annual sales and specializes in communications
technology, including battlefield radios.

Jon Michaels, a law
professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies
government procurement, said Harris’s role with the nondisclosure
agreements gave the company tremendous power over privacy policies in
the public arena.

“This is like the privatization of a legal regime,” he said. Referring to Harris, he said: “They get to call the shots.”

For
instance, in Tucson, a journalist asking the Police Department about
its StingRay use was given a copy of a nondisclosure agreement. “The
City of Tucson shall not discuss, publish, release or disclose any
information pertaining to the product,” it read, and then noted:
“Without the prior written consent of Harris.”

The secrecy appears to have unintended consequences. A recent article in The Washington Post detailed how a man in Florida who was accused of armed robbery was located using StingRay.

As
the case proceeded, a defense lawyer asked the police to explain how
the technology worked. The police and prosecutors declined to produce
the machine and, rather than meet a judge’s order that they do so, the
state gave the defendant a plea bargain for petty theft.

At the
meeting in Santa Clara County last month, the county supervisors voted 4
to 1 to authorize the purchase, but they also voted to require the
adoption of a privacy policy.

(Sheriff Smith argued to the
supervisors that she had adequately explained the technology and said
she resented that Mr. Simitian’s questioning seemed to “suggest we are
not mindful of people’s rights and the Constitution.”)

A few days
later, the county asked Harris for a demonstration open to county
supervisors. The company refused, Mr. Simitian said, noting that “only
people with badges” would be permitted. Further, he said, the company
declined to provide a copy of the nondisclosure agreement — at least
until after the demonstration.

“Not only is there a nondisclosure
agreement, for the time being, at least, we can’t even see the
nondisclosure agreement,” Mr. Simitian said. “We may be able to see it
later, I don’t know.”

All four officers have been reassigned to positions that require no contact with the public.

The
messages were sent between October of 2011 and June of 2012. Here are
some of the most vile texts, mainly initiated through Furminger, per a federal document made public Friday:

•
“We got two blacks at my boys [sic] school and they are brother and
sister! There cause dad works for the school district and I am watching
them like hawks.”

• In response to a text asking “Do you
celebrate quanza [sic] at your school?” Furminger wrote: “Yeah we burn
the cross on the field! Then we celebrate Whitemas.”

• “Its [sic] worth every penny to live here [Walnut Creek] away from the savages.”

•
“Those guys are pretty stupid! Ask some dumb ass questions you would
expect from a black rookie! Sorry if they are your buddies!”

•
“The buffalo soldier was why the Indians Wouldnt [sic] shoot the niggers
that found for the confederate They [sic] thought they were sacred
buffalo and not human.”

• “Gunther Furminger was a famous slave auctioneer.”

•
“My wife has 2 friends over that don’t know each other the cool one
says to me get me a drink nigger not knowing the other is married to one
just happened right now LMFAO.”

• “White power.”

• In response to a text saying “Niggers should be spayed,” Furminger wrote “I saw one an hour ago with 4 kids.”

• “I am leaving it like it is, painting KKK on the sides and calling it a day!”

• “Cross burning lowers blood pressure! I did the test myself!”

• In response to a text saying “All niggers must fucking hang,” Furminger wrote “Ask my 6 year old what he thinks about Obama.”

•
In response to a text saying “Just boarded train at Mission/16th,”
Furminger wrote “Ok, just watch out for BM’s” [black males].

• “I
hate to tell you this but my wife friend [sic] is over with their kids
and her husband is black! If [sic] is an Attorney but should I be
worried?” Furminger’s friend, an SFPD officer, responded: “Get ur pocket
gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its
[sic] not against the law to put an animal down.” Furminger responded,
“Well said!”

• In response to a text from another SFPD officer
regarding the promotion of a black officer to sergeant, Furminger wrote:
“Fuckin nigger.”

What is especially disturbing about the text
messages is that all four officers have at least 10 years on the force;
some work in very specialized units in the SFPD. Robison, who has 23
years of service, was assigned to the Special Victims Unit before being
transferred to the Mounted Unit.

Celis, a 16-year vet, was
charged with four counts of misconduct, in 2004, for flashing his badge
and trying to bribe his way into his estranged wife’s hotel room. In
2009, Schwab was seen on video threatening to break a skateboarder's arm
“like a twig” if he resisted arrest. It is not clear if he faced
disciplinary charges in connection to the threats he made. As for,
Daugherty, a 15 year veteran, his attorney says her client is sorry for
his “impulsive and insensitive” texts.

The revelation of the
racist texts may very well explain why black people in San Francisco are
arrested at disproportionately high rates compared with white
residents. According to statistics
from the California Department of Corrections, black Americans are
seven times more likely to be arrested, despite making up just 6 percent
of the city’s population.

San Francisco police Chief Greg Suhr said that he could not confirm the identities of the officers connected to the texts but is ready to fire them.

“You
cannot unring the bell on these text messages — anybody who has sent
these text messages should not be a police officer,” Suhr said. “Ian
Furminger should never have been a police officer; he’s a disgrace.
These other officers have disgraced the department as well.”

Public
Defender Jeff Adachi says the officers’ identities must be made public
because their testimony in prior cases must be scrutinized.

“We
have a right to this information. It may affect both current and past
cases,” he said. “This is hugely problematic — if these officers were
involved in active investigations in the last 2½ years, it is relevant
and must be disclosed.”

Terrell Jermaine Starr is a senior editor at AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter @Russian_Starr.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) A More Public Option for Investigating Shootings by Police Officers

MISSOULA,
Mont. — In most places, the actions of the police officer who fatally
shot Kaileb Williams, 20, would have been judged in secret, by an
anonymous grand jury weighing criminal charges behind closed doors.

Here,
it all played out in the open, during a little-known proceeding called a
coroner’s inquest. It unfolded like a miniature trial, with a county
coroner presiding in place of a judge, and seven Montana residents
questioning witnesses and examining the violent, chaotic path that led
Mr. Williams to a deadly standoff with the police on an icy night this
past December.

These inquests are relics in America’s justice
system, harking back to an era when elected coroners sat in judgment of
Western gunslingers like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. But they are
finding new support from some elected officials and civil rights
advocates critical of the cloistered grand jury process that cleared
police officers in the killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo.,
and Staten Island.Inquests do not indict officers or judge guilt or
innocence, but lawyers here said they could be useful tools in cities
inflamed by police killings. They take place before trials — often
before any criminal charges are even filed — and offer a forum to air
painful details and talk about disputed facts.

In Pasco, Wash.,
where the shooting death of a Hispanic orchard worker last month
resulted in accusations of bias and cover-ups by the police, the coroner
recently announced that he would hold an open inquest to head off
“another Ferguson.”

“It helps to come to terms with a traumatic
event to go through it in a public way,” said Paul MacMahon, an
assistant law professor at the London School of Economics who recently
wrote about inquests.

The inquests have the simple aims of
officially declaring who was killed and when, but they also have the
power to decide whether a killing is justified or a crime — a crucial
question when a police officer has pulled the trigger. Whatever their
outcome, the decision to file charges still rests with local
prosecutors.

Inquests occur sporadically across the country,
sometimes after a jail suicide, other times when the circumstances of a
death are murky or in dispute. Legal experts said Montana appeared to be
the only state to require the county coroner to undertake a full,
public investigation of deaths in custody or at the hands of law
enforcement officers.

Echoing criticisms of grand juries,
detractors say inquests are also biased toward the police. In Montana,
for example, at least 12 men have been killed in confrontations with law
enforcement officers the past two years — some of them shootouts,
others cases in which the slain men were unarmed. Coroners’ juries have
not sided against law enforcement in any of them.

Critics say the
scales are tipped because local prosecutors, who often have working
relationships with the police and sheriff’s officers, choose the
witnesses and ask the questions. Victims or their lawyers can submit
questions from a public gallery, but they have no power to question
witnesses themselves. And the coroners are often closely aligned with
law enforcement.

“You need somebody independent presiding,” Mr. MacMahon said.

In
Las Vegas, county officials passed new rules for inquests into
officer-involved deaths requiring that an ombudsman represent the family
of the slain person, and that a justice of the peace, not the coroner,
oversee the proceeding. Police groups opposed the changes, and
successfully sued to overturn them.

The day before the March 9
inquest into Mr. Williams’s death here, his mother, Rhenon, said she was
still grieving the loss of a son she remembered as a tender and
protective boy who had loved toy trains, comic books and cross-country
running. She wanted a criminal trial, but she expected the coroner’s
jury to clear the officer, Cpl. Paul Kelly, of committing any crime in
the early-morning shooting on Dec. 31.

“My son was unjustly killed,” she said. “There were other ways of taking care of this situation and simmering it down.”

Nobody disputes that Mr. Williams’s last hours alive were a violent spiral into chaos.

He
had been drinking at his apartment in Missoula, and a fight erupted
when his girlfriend of three years, Rita Daniel, returned to his
apartment and saw him having sex with another woman, according to
testimony from the inquest. When his mother came over at the
girlfriend’s request, Mr. Williams punched her in the face several times
and drove away with Ms. Daniel.

Increasingly hysterical and
despondent, he led the police on a chase through Missoula’s icy streets
that ended when his car died along an on-ramp. He slapped Ms. Daniel
with the back of his hand a few times during the ride, she testified,
and alternately yelled, cried, punched the steering wheel and apologized
to her. He had previously been convicted on drug charges and told Ms.
Daniel, “I’m not going to do this again.”

”I knew he was talking about dying,” she testified.

Corporal
Kelly, a 12-year veteran of the Missoula police, was the first to
approach the car. In videotapes and transcripts from that night, he was
empathetic and understanding until the moment he shot Mr. Williams. He
urged Mr. Williams to calm down, insisted that he had other options and
told him that he did not want to shoot him.

When Mr. Williams
yelled that he had reached a dead end, Corporal Kelly said, “Just talk
to me, man,” according to the transcript.

Several times, Mr. Williams urged the police to shoot him, once pointing to his head.

“Kill me right now, and it’s over,” he told them.

“O.K. well, I can’t do that,” Corporal Kelly responded. “That would be murder.”

“Right here, right now, it’s over,” Mr. Williams said.

“And if I don’t?”

“It’s gonna get ugly.”

Had
Mr. Williams been alone, Corporal Kelly said, the police would probably
have backed off and negotiated from a distance. But they could hear Ms.
Daniel whimpering in the car, and said Mr. Williams had yelled that he
was holding her hostage. Although he turned out to be unarmed, his
mother had told the police that he might have a knife, scissors or
pepper spray.

When Mr. Williams noticed two other officers
approaching his car, a tense situation grew dire, several officers
testified. He wrapped his arm around Ms. Daniel’s neck and pulled her
low toward him. She has described the motion both as a chokehold and
something akin to a protective embrace, but Corporal Kelly testified
that at that moment, he thought Mr. Williams was slitting her throat.

“That’s what I believed was happening,” he testified. “I knew I had to stop him.”

It was 3:18 a.m. He fired once, straight through the driver’s window into Mr. Williams’s head.

The
structure of the inquest allowed the jury to pepper the witnesses with
questions. Why did you go with Mr. Williams in his car that night? one
asked Ms. Daniel. Did you ever get out of the car? Had you been
drinking? Another asked Corporal Kelly: How well could you see into the
car? Did you think about backing away?

After a day of testimony,
Jason Marks, a deputy county attorney, faced the jurors and asked them:
“Do you think that Officer Paul Kelly should be charged with deliberate
homicide? That’s the question.”

Less than an hour later, they
came back with an answer: No. They were unanimous: The killing was
justified. In an interview afterward, Corporal Kelly, 39, said he had
been confident the legal system would vindicate him. He said that even
as he pulled the trigger that night, knowing the heartache that would
follow for Mr. Williams’s loved ones, he believed he was acting to stop
Mr. Williams from killing his girlfriend.

That night was the
first time he had killed anyone, he said, and he replayed the shooting
in his mind, and kept concluding that he had been right to pull the
trigger.

“When you go through something like this, you’re going
to have people who love you and people who hate you,” he said. “I knew
in my heart and my mind that it had to be done.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) Louisiana Parish Fights Plan to Burn Tons of Propellant No One Wants

MINDEN,
La. — Just before midnight on Oct. 15, 2012, Sheriff Gary Sexton of
Webster Parish was driving home from the airport when the sky lit up
like midday. He flipped on his walkie-talkie to hear everyone asking:
What on earth were those big booms?

As the sheriff would soon
learn, two massive explosions had taken place at Camp Minden, a
15,000-acre site owned by the state in the pine woods just south of
here, where private companies engage in military-related work. When the
authorities began examining the blast site, they found something
startling: thousands of tons of M6 propellant, used in the firing of
artillery rounds, stuffed into plastic bags and piled into sagging
cardboard boxes, many of them out in open fields.

“Turned upside
down, spilled, out in the open, in the weather, out in the woods — it
was unbelievable,” Sheriff Sexton said. “To be honest with you, I was
ready to leave.”Though the initial explosions were so big that smoke
from them showed up on National Weather Service radar, no one was
injured and damage was minimal. But more than two years later, figuring
out how to dispose of 18 million pounds of unstable and dangerous
material — who would do it and whether it could be done in a way that
did not compound the danger — remains the talk of the parish.

The
material belonged to Explo Systems, a private contractor. The 18
million pounds includes some explosives like TNT, but nearly all of it
is M6 propellant, which can spontaneously ignite, a risk that increases
significantly over time. Officials with the Environmental Protection Agency say it is the largest such stockpile in the country.

Last
week, a couple of dozen people, forming what is called the Minden
Dialogue Committee, gathered at a community center here to discuss how
to proceed. The group included scientists, environmental activists,
government officials and local residents like Sam Mims, a retired Army
colonel, who appeared as an “irritated, concerned citizen representing
my 17 cows.” They had been meeting almost constantly, at least by
telephone, since early February.

The committee was formed in
direct opposition to a plan announced in October by the Army, the E.P.A.
and the Louisiana National Guard to burn all of the M6 propellant
outdoors in large trays, a disposal method routinely used by the Army,
though not at this scale. The idea of burning 80,000 pounds a day in
open fires for more than 220 days — which some experts said would send
untold amounts of carcinogens and other hazardous pollutants into the
air — was a nonstarter with nearby residents.

“If there is an open burn,” Colonel Mims said, “somebody’s equipment is going to have to run over me.”

People
who live around Camp Minden, for years the site of a munitions plant
run by the United States government, are not unacquainted with
explosions or pollution, but this time is different.

Explo, which
had run into problems with safety violations at other sites, had been
working at Camp Minden under contract with the Army to dismantle bombs
and artillery shells into components that it would later sell. The M6
propellant was usually purchased by coal mining companies, but in recent
years the demand from the coal industry began to dry up. The supply,
however, kept coming — even as Explo ran out of room to store it.

After
the explosions, the 18 million pounds of material was gathered and put
into 97 separate bunkers to reduce the risk of an ignition setting off a
huge fire. Now, said Johnny Heflin, a rancher in the nearby town of
Doyline, there are “97 big bombs all waiting to go off.”

Given
years of natural degradation, accelerated by long stretches out in the
elements, the propellant has for some time been at “imminent and
substantial risk” of self-igniting, according to the E.P.A. But disposal
has been problematic.

The Army’s position was that once charges
are demilitarized they no longer belong to the Army, which is
statutorily barred from cleaning up private property. E.P.A. officials
responded that Defense Department officials, which had oversight of
Explo’s demilitarization activities, consistently gave Explo clean marks
in quarterly safety audits — though, as one Defense official
acknowledged to the E.P.A., inspectors were always escorted by Explo
representatives and did not look at storage areas.

While this
debate continued, seven of Explo’s employees were indicted and, in
August 2013, the company declared bankruptcy. The State of Louisiana
thus found itself the owner of roughly 9,000 tons of dangerous material
that no one wanted.

A funding arrangement was eventually worked
out, with $24 million coming from a federal liability pool, and the
E.P.A., the Army and the National Guard came to a formal agreement last
October to set up an open-tray burn.

Dolores Blalock, a retired
journalism professor living on a farm not far from Camp Minden, heard
about it on the news. She looked up M6 propellant online. Her first
thought, she recalled: “These people are crazy.”

At a December
public meeting, Ms. Blalock, along with a chemistry professor at a
nearby university, lit into the officials for making the decision
without reaching out to private citizens and challenged testing that
showed an open burn would be safe. Thus began a feisty campaign, joining
liberal environmental activists with conservative politicians in common
opposition to the open burn.

The E.P.A. had insisted that an
open burn could be controlled so that it stayed well within state and
federal emissions standards. But Ron Curry, the regional E.P.A.
administrator, acknowledged last week that officials had made a mistake
in going forward without community comment.

“The remedy was based
upon past practices more than anything else,” Mr. Curry said last week.
With the public outcry, he said, “we thought it was important to kind
of back up.”

In late January, the E.P.A. announced a delay and
agreed to the creation of the Minden Dialogue Committee to recommend
alternative disposal methods. Since then, the group has been studying
the relevant science, interviewing contractors and demanding, with
limited success, responses from the Army and the E.P.A.

Last
week, the committee made a final recommendation of six technologies that
members believed would be both safe and effective, including the use of
microwaves or high-pressure and high-temperature water. The
recommendation is not binding, and the Army, which has expressed
reservations about the other methods, maintains that an open burn
“generally constitutes the safest and most efficient way to dispose of
these materials,” according to a spokesman.

For now, the process
is largely in the hands of the E.P.A. and the Louisiana National Guard,
which will finish accepting estimates from potential contractors this
week.

But members of the dialogue committee stressed that they do
not see their work as finished: If the authorities proceed with an open
burn, Ms. Blalock, Colonel Mims, Sheriff Sexton and others said they
would not shy from a confrontation.

Still, amid the pine trees at
Camp Minden, the M6 sits. When asked how grave the danger is, with no
way to know how old the material is or how long it was left outside or
how many of the bunkers may have let in moisture, Sheriff Sexton said
what just about all of the experts are saying: “I really don’t know.”

FRANKFURT — Protesters set cars on fire and clashed with police officers on Wednesday morning as they marched toward the European Central Bank’s new headquarters in a demonstration against European austerity programs and capitalism.

The rally, organized by a group called Blockupy
and German workers’ unions, drew thousands of people as the central
bank inaugurated its new tower. Blockupy is a left-wing alliance of
dozens of activist groups from across Europe. Its members include the
second-largest German labor union, Ver.di, and Syriza, the Greek
political party that is now leading the government in Athens.

The
European Central Bank is one of debt-burdened Greece’s main creditors,
and it is part of the so-called troika of international organizations
that are supervising the Greek bailout program that the government of
Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is trying to renegotiate. The two other
creditor groups are the European Commission and the International
Monetary Fund, which along with the central bank are widely blamed for
imposing austerity budgets on countries that have required bailouts.

A
recent posting on Blockupy’s website predicted that thousands would
attend, “to blockade and demonstrate, and to say: ‘There’s nothing to
celebrate in your handling of the crisis.’ ”

The exact number of
demonstrators was difficult to determine because the protesters moved
around the city in groups and were prevented by the police from banding
together outside the central bank tower. The demonstration was set to
last through the evening, with busloads of marchers joining throughout
the day.

Since 2012, activists have occasionally handed out
leaflets in front of the central bank’s headquarters, but there had been
little organized protest in Frankfurt until Wednesday.

As a
group of roughly 400 demonstrators tried to cross a bridge over the Main
River and head toward the tower, they were blocked by the police.
Smaller groups burned cars, furniture, trash and bikes nearby. Dozens of
police officers in riot gear guarded an area around the European
Central Bank.

Employees of the central bank began moving into the
new headquarters, which cost 1.2 billion euros, or about $1.27 billion,
near the end of last year. Located away from downtown Frankfurt on a
parklike site overlooking the Main River, the roughly 600-foot-high
tinted-glass tower is a more potent symbol of central bank power than
the generic gray high-rise in central Frankfurt that it previously
occupied.

The inauguration ceremony on Wednesday was scaled back
in response to the protests. In addition, some European Central Bank
employees were encouraged to work from home on Wednesday, though a
central bank spokesman said that the institution was “fully
operational.”

Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank,
acknowledged in a speech inaugurating the headquarters that European
unity was being strained and that “people are going through very
difficult times.”

As a European Union institution “that has
played a central role throughout the crisis, the E.C.B. has become a
focal point for those frustrated with this situation,” Mr. Draghi said
in prepared remarks. “This may not be a fair charge – our action has
been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered by the economy.
But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen very
carefully to what all our citizens are saying.”

Many businesses
near the headquarters shut their doors, and residents watched the action
on the street from their windows, coffee and cameras in hand.

A
woman from Denmark who would give her name only as Sara said she arrived
on an overnight bus with about 80 others to show her disdain for the
way the capitalist system enriches some but impoverishes others.

“I
believe in fighting against the system,” she said, taking a break in a
bakery after having inhaled tear gas that was apparently released by
officers after a group of demonstrators set fire to a police car. “It
won’t change if you don’t do something. I am here for solidarity.”

At
the police barricades, isolated demonstrators were along a line with
signs bearing slogans like “ECB = Monetary Fascism.” On the ground,
someone wrote in blue chalk on the street, “Your house is built on
corpses.”

A representative from the Committee for Civil Rights
and Democracy, Martin Singe, who was attending the demonstrations as an
observer, said that protesters were supposed to be allowed closer to the
central bank tower but were stopped prematurely, limiting the impact of
pictures and television segments from the march.

Mr. Singe also
said that Frankfurt did not allow demonstrators access to public space
for organizing before the march. “It appears the police were expecting
violence and therefore may have induced it,” he said.

The European Central Bank drew smaller, orderly protests when it met in Nicosia, Cyprus, on March 5.
The demonstrators were mostly Cypriots who objected to what they said
was the central bank’s focus on helping banks rather than eurozone
citizens.

The previous European Central Bank building was the
focal point of protests beginning in October 2011 as part of the global
Occupy movement. Protesters objected to what they said was the central
bank’s distance from democratic processes and its role in the center of
the global financial system.

An encampment with an estimated 60
to 100 protesters persisted in a grassy area below the previous
headquarters building until the police cleared it in August 2012, after
complaints that it had become infested with rats and housed more
homeless people than protesters.

The eviction took place without
any major incidents. The German police have experience in dealing with
protesters of every political stripe, and they are skilled at containing
violence and avoiding physical confrontation.

Sven Giegold, a
member of the Greens in the European Parliament who speaks for the party
on monetary policy issues, said he supported the protests and would
attend. But, in a statement, he questioned whether the European Central
Bank was the right site for the protests.

“The main
responsibility for the unsocial and economically counterproductive euro
policy of the troika is located in the capitals of the eurozone,” Mr.
Giegold said.

“Berlin, Paris, Rome and Athens would be the
correct addresses for the demonstrations,” Mr. Giegold said. He gave the
central bank credit for rescuing the eurozone from bad decision making
by European political leaders.

A Missouri man who was missing 20 percent of the frontal lobe of his brain was executed on Tuesday, after the United States Supreme Court declined to delay his death and order a test of his mental competency.

The
man, Cecil Clayton, 74, was executed by lethal injection at 9:13 p.m.
Central Daylight Time at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Mo.

Mr. Clayton was working
at his family’s sawmill in 1972 when a piece of wood penetrated his
skull and pushed bone fragments into his brain. During surgery, doctors
removed a portion of his frontal lobe, the part of the brain involved in
impulse control and problem solving, among other functions.

Family
members and medical experts who examined him said that Mr. Clayton
subsequently began to have hallucinations, and that he became
increasingly violent and unpredictable. He had an I.Q. of 71 — 29 points
below the average I.Q. — and had schizophrenia and intense paranoia.In
November 1996, 24 years after the sawmill accident, Mr. Clayton was
sentenced to death for fatally shooting Christopher L. Castetter, a
deputy sheriff in Barry County, a rural area in southwestern Missouri.

Missouri
law and federal law dictate that people in line for execution be aware
that they are to be killed and understand the reasons for the punishment
in order for their treatment not to violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

What
many taxpayers may not realize is that they already do. When it comes
to the government, taxing is often just another name for spending.

There
are tax credits and tax deductions; tax exclusions and tax exemptions;
tax deferrals and tax reductions; tax discharges and tax preferences,
all of which put money in people’s wallets rather than take it out.

There is one critical difference between tax-related payouts, however, and those that come directly from the federal budget: Spending channeled through the tax code tends to overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans.

According
to an analysis of $340 billion in tax subsidies for housing, education,
retirement and savings in 2013, the top 1 percent received about $95
billion, more than the $90 billion received by the bottom 80 percent
combined, said the Corporation for Enterprise Development, a nonprofit organization that seeks to build assets for low- and moderate-income families.

“Every
year, the federal government spends billions of dollars on these tax
programs primarily to support the highest-income households that need
support the least,” said Ezra Levin, associate director of government
affairs for the group, which is based in Washington.

Relentless
pressure in recent years, particularly by conservatives, to reduce
program spending has meant that the tax code has increasingly become the
primary driver of social policy when it comes to education, retirement
and housing.

The amount of spending in those areas channeled
through taxes is on the rise, topping $620 billion in 2014, up from $540
billion in 2013, according to Mr. Levin’s analysis. By comparison,
federal discretionary spending by 14 of the 15 cabinet agencies,
including housing, transportation, labor, commerce, education, Treasury
and health and human services totaled $464 billion.

“This is not a liberal position or a conservative position,” he said.

Those
at the tippy-top of the income scale — the top 0.1 percent, with an
average annual income of $7.6 million — received an average of $33,391
in federal tax payouts analyzed by the group. Those in the bottom 60
percent, who earn less than $65,000, got less than $1,000 on average,
altogether about 12 percent of the billions handed out.

Neither analysis includes the new federal
tax credits available to low- and moderate-income households that bought
private health insurance on public marketplaces set up under the
Affordable Care Act. Roughly 85 percent of the 16.4 million Americans who
are insured through these exchanges receive a government subsidy to
help pay premiums, according to figures released by the Obama
administration this week. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the average subsidy in 2015 at $3,960.
The bulk of this financial assistance, which is available through
federal exchanges in 34 states, has been challenged by conservative
opponents, and a Supreme Court ruling is expected in June.

Once
you exit the partisan muck surrounding the Obama administration’s health
care program, however, Democrats and Republicans are largely united on
many tax breaks, which were aimed at encouraging what are considered
socially beneficial goals, like homeownership and college and retirement
savings. Eliminating or reducing them can unleash a firestorm, as
President Obama discovered when he proposed, and then abandoned,
a plan to do away with the tax benefits for 529 college savings plans,
where families can contribute up to $14,000 a year. Households with
incomes above $150,000 received 80 percent of that program’s tax
benefit, according to the White House.

Other benefits similarly
help largely upper-income families. The deduction for mortgage interest
payments, one of the oldest and largest, and the one for property taxes
together cost the federal government $98.5 billion in 2014. About 70
percent of the benefits went to the top quintile of earners. The average
gain for a household in the bottom 20 percent — those earning less than
$21,000 a year — amounted to $3, according to the enterprise
development group.

Retirement
tax spending, totaling $146 billion in 2014, up from $128 billion from
the previous year, also primarily benefits high-income households. The
average annual benefit for the 1 percenters in 2013 equaled $13,088,
compared with $200 or less for the bottom 60 percent, the development
group found.

Tax programs that do help those with less include
the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy that increases the incomes
of 27 million low-wage workers. Many economists and advocates consider
it the most effective antipoverty measure around. The savers credit,
which helps low- and moderate-income families build retirement savings,
is also geared toward those with fewer resources.

In his 2016
budget, President Obama proposed bulking up these programs, including a
$500 tax credit for working parents with children. The White House
estimated that the maximum credit would help those earning below
$120,000, with some money funneled to households with incomes up to
$210,000.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican
of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has
agreed that earned-income tax credits should be expanded to adults
without children instead of just to parents, but he has balked at
endorsing Mr. Obama’s proposed “second earner” tax credit.

Tax
policy tends to benefit those in the upper tier of the income ladder for
several reasons. Wealthier households fall into higher income brackets,
and so they get proportionately greater savings. They also have more
assets to put into housing, retirement accounts and educational programs
that are eligible for tax subsidies.

Many economists have noted
that from an accountant’s point of view, there is no difference between
spending through the tax code and the budget. The minimum-wage worker
who uses a federal voucher to help pay the rent and the Wall Street
banker who deducts the mortgage interest on a multimillion-dollar
vacation getaway in the Hamptons are both the recipients of government
housing assistance.

Donald Marron,
a former member of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic
Advisers, called it “spending in disguise,” arguing that “the confusion
surrounding such spending allows politicians to claim they are saving
taxpayers’ money when, in fact, they are really spending it.”

Congress
started including what are known as tax expenditures in federal
spending totals in 1976 as part of a budget reform package.

Anti-tax
advocates ardently dispute the notion that tax reductions are
equivalent to public assistance. “That’s just stupid and dishonest,”
said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. “Letting people keep their own money does not increase the size of government in any way.”

Suzanne Mettler,
a professor of government at Cornell University, counters that the
government doesn’t bestow tax-related largess equally. “Just like direct
social benefits, benefits in the tax code are directed at certain
groups of people,” she said. Home buyers get a break; renters don’t,
even if they both earn the same.

To Ms. Mettler, the hidden
nature of tax code spending undermines support for the government,
because people don’t recognize just how much they benefit. Ms. Mettler,
who is the author of “The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy,”
pointed to a 2008 poll from Cornell’s Survey Research Institute that
found that a majority of Americans insisted they did not use any
government programs, even when they took advantage of deductions on
mortgage interest or student loans.

She
advocates providing receipts that detail just how much money someone
receives through the tax code, a counterpart to the W-2s and other
notices that list what someone pays.

WASHINGTON — IF anyone doubted where Benjamin Netanyahu
stood on the question of peace, the Israeli prime minister made himself
clear just before Tuesday’s election, proclaiming that there would
never be a Palestinian state on his watch. Then he decided to engage in a bit of fear-mongering against Palestinian citizens of Israel
in hopes of driving his supporters to the polls. “The right-wing
government is in danger,” Mr. Netanyahu announced on Election Day. “Arab
voters are heading to the polling stations in droves.”

But Mr.
Netanyahu’s victory is actually the best plausible outcome for those
seeking to end Israel’s occupation. Indeed, I, as a Palestinian,
breathed a sigh of relief when it became clear that his Likud Party had
won the largest number of seats in the Knesset.

This might seem
counterintuitive, but the political dynamics in Israel and
internationally mean that another term with Mr. Netanyahu at the helm
could actually hasten the end of Israel’s apartheid policies. The
biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that
change could come from within Israel. It can’t and it won’t.

Israelis
have grown very comfortable with the status quo. In a country that
oversees a military occupation that affects millions of people, the
biggest scandals aren’t about settlements, civilian deaths or hate
crimes but rather mundane things like the price of cottage cheese and
whether the prime minister’s wife embezzled bottle refunds.

For
Israelis, there’s currently little cost to maintaining the occupation
and re-electing leaders like Mr. Netanyahu. Raising the price of
occupation is therefore the only hope of changing Israeli decision
making. Economic sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s increased
its international isolation and put pressure on the apartheid regime to
negotiate. Once Israelis are forced to decide between perpetual
occupation and being accepted in the international community, they may
choose a more moderate leader who dismantles settlements and pursues
peace, or they may choose to annex rather than relinquish land —
provoking a confrontation with America and Europe. Either way, change
will have to come from the outside.

The boycott, divestment and
sanctions campaign (B.D.S.) has thrived while Mr. Netanyahu has led
Israel. He has become the internationally recognized face of Israeli
intransigence, settlement building and brazen disregard for Palestinian
human rights. But while Mr. Netanyahu has become synonymous with the
occupation, he is in many ways a product of it. There are also
entrenched political and economic interests that benefit from
maintaining the status quo.

By monopolizing West Bank
land and natural resources, Israel reaps the benefits of occupation
with few costs. Settlements are a major state investment, and add both a
geographic and political obstacle to peace since settlers play a key
role in shaping Israeli politics and their interests cannot be ignored.

Mr.
Netanyahu’s style has certainly heightened tensions and harmed
relations with Israel’s allies. He has clashed with President Obama and
thumbed his nose at the Democratic Party by helping to make Israel a
partisan political issue in America. His most recent speech before a
joint session of Congress, which 60 members of Congress boycotted, was
merely the latest incident.

Replacing Mr. Netanyahu with his
challenger, Isaac Herzog, would have slowed down the B.D.S. movement and
halted pressure on Israel by creating the perception of change. A new
prime minister would have kick-started a new “peace process” based on
previous failed models that would inevitably fail again because of a
lack of real pressure on Israel to change its deplorable behavior.The
re-election of Mr. Netanyahu provides clarity. Two years ago Secretary
of State John Kerry declared that the maximum time left for a two-state
solution was two years. Mr. Netanyahu officially declared it dead this
week in order to drive right-wing voters to the polls. The two-state
solution, which has seen more funerals than a reverend, exists today
only as a talking point for self-interested, craven politicians to hide
behind — not as a realistic basis for peace.

The old
land-for-peace model must now be replaced with a rights-for-peace model.
Palestinians must demand the right to live on their land, but also free
movement, equal treatment under the law, due process, voting rights and
freedom from discrimination.

Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election has
convincingly proved that trusting Israeli voters with the fate of
Palestinian rights is disastrous and immoral. His government will oppose
any constructive change, placing Israel on a collision course with the
rest of the world. And this collision has never been more necessary.

The
election results will further galvanize the movement seeking to isolate
Israel internationally. B.D.S. campaigns will grow, and more countries
will move toward imposing sanctions to change Israeli behavior. In the
past few years, a major Dutch pension fund divested large sums from
Israeli banks active in the West Bank, and hundreds of millions of
dollars have been divested from companies, like G4S and SodaStream, that
operate in occupied territory.

There won’t be real change on the
ground or at the polls without further pressure on Israel. And now,
that pressure will increase. For this, we have Mr. Netanyahu to thank.

Since
the deaths of Michael Brown Jr. in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner on
Staten Island, police use of deadly force against unarmed black men has
become a topic of national discussion.

Protests recently flared
in Madison, Wis., after the killing of Tony Terrell Robinson Jr., 19,
there. Mr. Robinson was shot on March 6 inside an apartment by Matt
Kenny, a veteran officer who responded to reports of a man jumping in
front of traffic and assaulting someone in a home.

Mr. Robinson’s shooting is significant for another reason: Wisconsin has a unique way of investigating police shootings.

In
most places, shootings involving officers are investigated by those
officers’ own police departments. But Wisconsin has a one-year-old law
that mandates that an outside agency investigate cases of police
shootings.

The law was championed by Michael Bell after his son
was shot by a police officer in Kenosha, Wis., in 2004.Mr. Bell has met
with Mr. Robinson’s family and offered advice. “I know what they are
going through,” he said. “You’re walking around living your life and
something like this happens. You’re overwhelmed, and you don’t know how
to deal with the media and with the system. There’s no place where you
can go and find out what to do when your son is shot by a police
officer.”

Civil rights advocates are pushing for other states to
enact policies similar to Wisconsin’s. Mr. Bell said that he receives
phone calls and emails daily from lawmakers interested in passing
similar legislation in their states.

Mr. Bell has praised
officials for their handling of the case in Madison, but he says the law
in Wisconsin does not go far enough. He is advocating for legislation
that would require the outside investigation to be handed to an
independent review board. The board would include those who have retired
from law enforcement and also police academy instructors, with the aim
of reducing future uses of excessive force.

When the law was just one week old in 2014, Dontre Hamilton was shot by a police officer in Milwaukee. As this Times video
explains, it would be the first case to test how effective the new law
is. Could it help provide a new faith in the justice system?

Target said on Wednesday that it would increase the pay of its workers to at least $9 an hour, joining retailers like Walmart and TJX in raising its hourly wage in a more competitive job market and facing pressure from labor groups.

Target,
a retailer with about 347,000 workers in the United States, has begun
telling them that they will start to receive higher wages this spring,
according to a person with knowledge of the company’s plans. The
retailer has said it already pays all of its employees more than the
federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour.

Brian Cornell, Target’s
chief executive, told financial analysts this month that the company
would make sure that it remained “very competitive from a wage
standpoint.” Target said that it did not expect those efforts to affect
its earnings.

Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the company did not disclose pay, but that it was continuously evaluating pay levels.

Target,
which is making a turnaround after years of lackluster sales, said last
week that it was laying off 1,700 corporate employees in a cost-cutting
drive at its Minneapolis headquarters. Target aims for a cost savings
of $2 billion in two years to reinvest in areas like food, e-commerce
and supply-chain technology.Walmart last month took the lead in announcing a raise for its hourly workers,
saying they would earn at least $9 an hour by April and at least $10 by
next February. Since then, TJX, which operates TJ Maxx, Marshalls and
Home Goods stores, said it would increase wages this year.

Pay is
rising in the retail industry as an improved job outlook has increased
competition for low-wage, hourly workers. The economy is adding jobs
rapidly, the jobless rate is at its lowest level since 2008 and wages
are climbing slowly, government figures showed last week.

BETHESDA,
Md. — ON her first morning in America, last summer, my daughter went
out to explore her new neighborhood — alone, without even telling my
wife or me.

Of course we were worried; we had just moved from
Berlin, and she was just 8. But when she came home, we realized we had
no reason to panic. Beaming with pride, she told us and her older sister
how she had discovered the little park around the corner, and had made
friends with a few local dog owners. She had taken possession of her new
environment, and was keen to teach us things we didn’t know.

When
this story comes up in conversations with American friends, we are
usually met with polite disbelief. Most are horrified by the idea that
their children might roam around without adult supervision. In Berlin,
where we lived in the center of town, our girls would ride the Metro on
their own — a no-no in Washington. Or they’d go alone to the playground,
or walk a mile to a piano lesson. Here in quiet and traffic-safe
suburban Washington, they don’t even find other kids on the street to
play with. On Halloween, when everybody was out to trick or treat, we
were surprised by how many children actually lived here whom we had
never seen.

A study by the University of California, Los Angeles,
has found that American kids spend 90 percent of their leisure time at
home, often in front of the TV or playing video games. Even when kids
are physically active, they are watched closely by adults, either in
school, at home, at afternoon activities or in the car, shuttling them
from place to place.

Such narrowing of the child’s world has happened across the developed world. But Germany
is generally much more accepting of letting children take some risks.
To this German parent, it seems that America’s middle class has taken
overprotective parenting to a new level, with the government acting as a
super nanny.

Just take the case of 10-year-old Rafi and
6-year-old Dvora Meitiv, siblings in Silver Spring, Md., who were picked
up in December by the police because their parents had dared to allow
them to walk home from the park alone. For trying to make them more
independent, their parents were found guilty by the state’s Child
Protective Services of “unsubstantiated child neglect.”
What had been the norm a generation ago, that kids would enjoy a
measure of autonomy after school, is now seen as almost a crime.

Today’s
parents enjoyed a completely different American childhood. Recently,
researchers at the University of Virginia conducted interviews with 100
parents. “Nearly all respondents remember childhoods of nearly unlimited
freedom, when they could ride bicycles and wander through woods,
streets, parks, unmonitored by their parents,” writes Jeffrey Dill, one
of the researchers.

But when it comes to their own children, the
same respondents were terrified by the idea of giving them only a
fraction of the freedom they once enjoyed. Many cited fear of abduction,
even though crime rates have declined significantly. The most recent
in-depth study found that, in 1999, only 115 children nationwide were
victims of a “stereotypical kidnapping” by a stranger; the overwhelming
majority were abducted by a family member. That same year, 2,931
children under 15 died as passengers in car accidents. Driving children
around is statistically more dangerous than letting them roam freely.

Motor
development suffers when most of a child’s leisure time is spent
sitting at home instead of running outside. Emotional development
suffers, too.“We are depriving them of opportunities to learn how to
take control of their own lives,” writes Peter Gray, a research
professor at Boston College. He argues that this increases “the chance
that they will suffer from anxiety, depression, and various other mental
disorders,” which have gone up dramatically in recent decades. He sees
risky, outside play of children among themselves without adult
supervision as a way of learning to control strong emotions like anger
and fear.

I am no psychologist like Professor Gray, but I know I
won’t be around forever to protect my girls from the challenges life
holds in store for them, so the earlier they develop the intellectual
maturity to navigate the world, the better. And by giving kids more
control over their lives, they learn to have more confidence in their
own capabilities.

It is hard for parents to balance the desire to
protect their children against the desire to make them more
self-reliant. And every one of us has to decide for himself what level
of risk he is ready to accept. But parents who prefer to keep their
children always in sight and under their thumbs should consider what
sort of trade-offs are involved in that choice.

At a minimum,
parents who want to give their children more room to roam shouldn’t be
penalized by an overprotective state. Cases like the Meitivs’ reinforce
the idea that children are fragile objects to be protected at all times,
and that parents who believe otherwise are irresponsible, if not
criminally negligent.

Besides overriding our natural protective
impulses in order to loosen the reins of our kids, my wife and I now
also have to ponder the possibility of running afoul of the authorities.
And we thought we had come to the land of the free.

Clemens Wergin is the Washington bureau chief for the newspaper Die Welt.

NEW
ORLEANS — Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are
investigating the death of a black man who was found hanging from a tree
in a small Mississippi town on Thursday morning.

The man was
hanging by a bedsheet, said Sheriff Marvin Lucas of Claiborne County,
who added that it had not yet been determined if hanging had been the
ultimate cause of death.

The man’s hands were not tied, the
sheriff said, adding that the death had not yet been ruled a homicide or
a suicide. The man has not yet been formally identified.

“This person had been out in the woods for a while,” Sheriff Lucas said. “He didn’t just go out there yesterday.”

But the state chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. identified the man as Otis James Byrd, 54.

Sheriff Lucas said that seemed possible, though an identification would not be certain until an autopsy was performed.

Mr.
Byrd has been missing since March 2 from the small town of Port Gibson,
which is not far from the Mississippi River. His family had filed a
missing person’s report with the Sheriff’s Department six days later.

On
Thursday morning, according to Jason Pack, a supervisory special agent
with the F.B.I., which is assisting state and local authorities in the
investigation, the Sheriff’s Department and the Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks were conducting a search for Mr. Byrd
when agents found the body hanging in the woods.

The location was about 500 yards from a house Mr. Byrd had been renting, Sheriff Lucas said.

According
to the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Mr. Byrd was convicted of
capital murder for killing a woman in February 1980 during a robbery.
He was released on parole in November 2006.

The federal
Department of Justice is also investigating the death for possible civil
rights violations. The state N.A.A.C.P. had urged federal involvement.

“Considering
Mr. Byrd’s body was found hanging from a tree, we are calling on
federal authorities to immediately investigate to determine whether his
death is a result of a racial hate crime,” Derrick Johnson, the
president of the state conference of the N.A.A.C.P., said in a
statement.

The State Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that all of Florida’s
juvenile killers who received automatic sentences of life in prison
must be resentenced under a law passed in 2014. The long-awaited ruling
answers the question of whether the United States Supreme Court’s 2012
decision in Miller v. Alabama, which effectively banned automatic life
sentences for juvenile killers, applies retroactively. An estimated 250
state prisoners, 17 of them from Lee and Collier Counties, are serving
life sentences for murders committed before they turned 18. Under
Florida’s 2014 law, passed to conform with the Supreme Court decision,
only juveniles who committed homicides after July 2014 were subject to a
revised sentencing structure, which required a judge to consider
several factors before determining a prison term. For about 20 years
before the law’s passage, Florida mandated a life sentence for juveniles
convicted of first-degree murder. After the law passed, Florida trial
and appeal courts have grappled with whether juveniles who killed before
July 2014 and received automatic life sentences should receive the same
consideration. The state’s five appeals courts gave conflicting
opinions. Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote in the opinion handed down
Thursday, “The patent unfairness of depriving indistinguishable juvenile
offenders of their liberty for the rest of their lives, based solely on
when their cases were decided, weighs heavily in favor of applying the
Supreme Court’s decision in Miller retroactively.”

Lawyers for the parties seeking the evidence had seized on the public outcry for transparency after the grand jury, as well as the one in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., declined to bring criminal charges against the officers involved.

The
prosecutor in the Brown case made public much of the information about
the Ferguson grand jury. But on Staten Island, Justice William E.
Garnett of State Supreme Court decided against the request for public
disclosure sought by the New York Civil Liberties Union; the city’s
public advocate, Letitia James; the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People; and The New York Post.Mr. Garner died on
July 17 after a confrontation with the police. Officer Daniel Pantaleo
put him in a chokehold as he and other officers tried to take Mr. Garner
into custody on suspicion of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. Mr.
Garner was unarmed.

In his decision, Justice Garnett’s reasoning
reflected his line of questioning in the hearing when he asked what each
party would do with the documents if released. Ultimately, he ruled,
the parties seeking disclosure had failed to establish a “compelling and
particularized need” to make the grand jury minutes public.

The parties, Justice Garnett wrote in his conclusion, “merely ask for disclosure for distribution to the public.”

“This
request is not a legally cognizable reason for disclosure,” he
continued. “What would they use the minutes for? The only answer which
the court heard was the possibility of effecting legislative change.
That proffered need is purely speculative and does not satisfy the
requirements of the law.”

State law strictly protects the secrecy of grand jury materials.

“But that presumption is not absolute,” Arthur Eisenberg, the legal director of the civil liberties group, said.

Ms. James and the civil liberties group immediately vowed to appeal the decision. They have 30 days to file notice.

One
of the parties’ chief complaints is that while for most felonies grand
juries are swift, bare-bones proceedings, those involving police-related
deaths can go on for weeks or months and take on the feel of a
minitrial carried out behind closed doors.

At a news conference,
Ms. James said she hoped disclosure would help answer key questions.
“How many witnesses? What was the substance of their testimony? What was
the physical evidence? Why did it take nine weeks? What were the
charges? What was the explanation of law?” she said. “All of those
questions and more need to be answered.”

Jonathan Moore, a lawyer
representing Mr. Garner’s mother and his widow and five children, said,
“I think it’s unfortunate given the great deal of public interest in
this case that he’s refused to provide the public access to any of the
materials in the grand jury.”

Mr. Moore said the grand jury process needed reform.

“Secret
grand juries are an anachronism,” he said. “The judge has essentially
sanctioned the use of a secret trial for a very public matter. If this
was a normal grand jury process, they would have had an indictment in
five minutes.”

Mr. Donovan, a Republican, is considered the
likely successor to Representative Michael G. Grimm, who resigned
earlier this year. Though Mr. Donovan succeeded in arguing for public
disclosure of summary information about the Garner grand jury after its
vote in December, he issued a one-line statement on Thursday: “We
respect and will adhere to Judge Garnett’s well-reasoned decision.”